Another Blow to Young Earth Creationist's Hypothesis - Think Atheist2018-03-19T15:01:58Zhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/forum/topics/another-blow-to-young-earth?commentId=1982180%3AComment%3A167723&x=1&feed=yes&xn_auth=noLOL! so true...tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-21:1982180:Comment:1677232009-11-21T10:27:52.292ZAndrew Jhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AndrewJ
LOL! so true...
LOL! so true... Now Danielle, you know that i…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-07:1982180:Comment:1622662009-11-07T18:52:13.167ZDave Ghttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/DaveG
Now Danielle, you know that if we invented time travel, they'd just claim that it was Satan trying to trick us.
Now Danielle, you know that if we invented time travel, they'd just claim that it was Satan trying to trick us. it does seem like they change…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-07:1982180:Comment:1620372009-11-07T08:47:33.429Zluishttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/rtfr
it does seem like they changed their view so i wont use them as "proof" anymore thanks for the info i really appreciate it!PEACE!!!!!!!!
it does seem like they changed their view so i wont use them as "proof" anymore thanks for the info i really appreciate it!PEACE!!!!!!!! LOL! Getting into character a…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-07:1982180:Comment:1616862009-11-07T01:20:58.338ZJohnnyhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Johnny
LOL! Getting into character a bit too much?
LOL! Getting into character a bit too much? This isn't a blow to anything…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-07:1982180:Comment:1616792009-11-07T00:55:36.103ZDaniellehttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/dibiz116
This isn't a blow to anything, because whatever method the scientists use to determine how old the remains of this village is, are obviously not correct! Show me proof! Take me back in time to 9800 BC and show me the village being there, only then will I believe your scientific mumbo jumbo "tests" of how old things are!
This isn't a blow to anything, because whatever method the scientists use to determine how old the remains of this village is, are obviously not correct! Show me proof! Take me back in time to 9800 BC and show me the village being there, only then will I believe your scientific mumbo jumbo "tests" of how old things are! Louis, Louis, Louis......~jus…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-06:1982180:Comment:1613802009-11-06T15:13:50.097ZMisty: Baytheist Living!http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/MMartin
Louis, Louis, Louis......~just shakes my head~
Louis, Louis, Louis......~just shakes my head~ Luis, they are criticizing cr…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-06:1982180:Comment:1613722009-11-06T14:18:39.085ZDon't label my essence! (Jared)http://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/JaredS
Luis, they are criticizing creationists for pointing to a paper as if it supported their claims when that very paper went unpublished because it's authors realized that the data they were drawing their conclusions from was unreliable and thus their conclusions were flawed. When better data was studied all signs pointed to the sun being variable in size.<br />
If you really are open to facts, regardless of the implications to your faith, then why are you so eager to defend a paper withdrawn by it's…
Luis, they are criticizing creationists for pointing to a paper as if it supported their claims when that very paper went unpublished because it's authors realized that the data they were drawing their conclusions from was unreliable and thus their conclusions were flawed. When better data was studied all signs pointed to the sun being variable in size.<br />
If you really are open to facts, regardless of the implications to your faith, then why are you so eager to defend a paper withdrawn by it's authors while simultaneously dismissing actual studies which point to the sun being a variable star? Eddy and Boornazian admitted that they were wrong on this issue, why can't <i>you</i> admit that they were wrong? Morgan already said this, but…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-05:1982180:Comment:1603562009-11-05T04:07:06.437ZAshli Axtellhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/AshliAxtell
Morgan already said this, but I had to echo his sentiment:<br />
<br />
What a fantastic video! I'm so glad you posted this.
Morgan already said this, but I had to echo his sentiment:<br />
<br />
What a fantastic video! I'm so glad you posted this. The paper, an abstract by Edd…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-05:1982180:Comment:1601982009-11-05T01:02:46.149ZJohnnyhttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/Johnny
The paper, an abstract by Eddy and Boornazian was never publish: <i>Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953</i>, Eddy and Boornazian, <i>Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society</i> 11:437 (1979)<br />
<br />
The data they were pulling from was from 7 different astronomers over a 90 year period. Follow-up analysis displayed that the data they were examining had significant variance in both methodology and instrumentation used. And it was old data, the more recent data, measured with more…
The paper, an abstract by Eddy and Boornazian was never publish: <i>Secular decrease in the solar diameter, 1863-1953</i>, Eddy and Boornazian, <i>Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society</i> 11:437 (1979)<br />
<br />
The data they were pulling from was from 7 different astronomers over a 90 year period. Follow-up analysis displayed that the data they were examining had significant variance in both methodology and instrumentation used. And it was old data, the more recent data, measured with more modern "high-tech" equipment in the 80s and 90s clearly showed their premise to be false. And even <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7065/pdf/nature04121.pdf" target="_blank">more recent studies</a> show that the sun cycles with slight variance.<br />
<br />
<font face="Courier New">"The rate of solar shrinkage suggested by Eddy and Boornazian was disputed from the outset. In the same month that Eddy and Boornazian's preliminary report was presented, S. Sofia, J. O'Keefe, J. R. Lesh and A. S. Endal published an article in Science which expressed the judgment that, on the basis of available data (mostly from meridian transit observations), the sun's angular diameter did not diminish by more than 0.5 are second 6 between 1850 and 1937. This value was less than one-fourth the rate proposed by Eddy and Boornazian."<br />
<br />
"In addition to the timing of solar meridian transits, other observations can be employed to determine the sun's diameter. In 1980, Irwin Shapiro published his analysis of the transits of Mercury in front of the sun from 1736 to 1973. Shapiro concluded that no significant change in the sun's diameter could be detected, and that the maximum shrinkage rate allowed by the data was 0.3 are second per century, about one-seventh of the Eddy and Boornazian value."<br />
<br />
"Similarly, D. W. Dunham et alia analyzed solar eclipse data and concluded that between 1715 and 1979 the sun's diameter may have decreased, but only by 0.7 are second, equivalent to a rate of about 0.25 are second per century."<br />
<br />
"The discrepancy between these results and the report by Eddy and Boornazian called for a second look at the solar meridian transit data. John H. Parkinson, Leslie V. Morrison and F. Richard Stephenson performed such a re-evaluation and concluded that the trends in the Greenwich data reported by Eddy and Boornazian <b>"are the result of instrumental and The Sun in Hydrogen-Alpha Light observational defects rather than real changes."</b>"</font><br />
<br />
In 1984, Claus Frohlich and <b>John Eddy</b> release a paper on recent measurements: <i>Observed Relation between Solar Luminosity and Radius</i><br />
<br />
<font face="Times New Roman">C. Frohlich and J. A. Eddy, "<i>Observed Relation between Solar Luminosity and Radius</i>" (Paper presented at an international conference sponsored by the Committee on Space Research, July, 1984, in Graz, Austria)</font><br />
<br />
In that paper they note that from 1967-80 there was actually a slight <b>increase</b> in the size of the sun; but "since 1980 the solar diameter has remained nearly constant, with a weak suggestion of decreasing."<br />
<br />
<font face="Courier New">"Eddy and Boornazian chose to look for variations in solar diameter by investigating historical records of solar meridian transits. Their preliminary results suggested a long term contraction at a surprisingly high rate. Though they did not consider their results ready for formal publication, Eddy and Boornazian decided to present their puzzle in a brief talk at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society. In this way the professional scientific community could join them in a critical evaluation of the data and their interpretation."</font><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html" target="_blank">This article</a> gives a pretty solid beat-down of the rapidly shrinking sun premise. hey bro ,youre critisizing cr…tag:www.thinkatheist.com,2009-11-05:1982180:Comment:1601612009-11-05T00:24:28.701Zluishttp://www.thinkatheist.com/profile/rtfr
hey bro ,youre critisizing creationists for a study done over a couple decades and now youre quoting a study that was done around 6 years or so. " why does someone assume that a study done around 6 years or so means that its a consistent trend? p.s. same question for the SFS OBSERVATORY statement.PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hey bro ,youre critisizing creationists for a study done over a couple decades and now youre quoting a study that was done around 6 years or so. " why does someone assume that a study done around 6 years or so means that its a consistent trend? p.s. same question for the SFS OBSERVATORY statement.PEACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!